COVID-19 lockdowns significantly impacting global air quality:
Levels of two major air pollutants have been drastically reduced since lockdowns began in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but a secondary pollutant—ground-level ozone—has increased in China, according to new research.
Two new studies in AGU's [(American Geophysical Union)] journal Geophysical Research Letters find nitrogen dioxide pollution over northern China, Western Europe and the U.S. decreased by as much as 60 percent in early 2020 as compared to the same time last year.
[...] In addition to nitrogen dioxide, one of the new studies finds particulate matter pollution (particles smaller than 2.5 microns) has decreased by 35 percent in northern China.
The two new papers are part of an ongoing special collection of research in AGU journals related to the current pandemic.
Such a significant drop in emissions is unprecedented since air quality monitoring from satellites began in the 1990s, said Jenny Stavrakou, an atmospheric scientist at the Royal Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy in Brussels and co-author of one of the papers.
[...] However, the drop in nitrogen dioxide pollution has caused an increase in surface ozone levels in China, according to one of the new studies. Ozone is a secondary pollutant formed when sunlight and high temperature catalyze chemical reactions in the lower atmosphere. Ozone is harmful to humans at ground-level, causing pulmonary and heart disease.
In highly polluted areas, particularly in winter, surface ozone can be destroyed by nitrogen oxides, so ozone levels can increase when nitrogen dioxide pollution goes down. As a result, although air quality has largely improved in many regions, surface ozone can still be a problem, according to Guy Brasseur, an atmospheric scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, and lead author of one of the new studies.
"It means that by just reducing the [nitrogen dioxide] and the particles, you won't solve the ozone problem," Brasseur said.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2020, @11:07AM (6 children)
Air quality improves when St Greta stops flying yacht crews around the world.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2020, @11:17AM (1 child)
Save the planet. Kill all humans.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2020, @11:44AM
Not irony, is the new entry to the guide, when it was discovered that the “mostly” was not applicable to humans.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2020, @11:45AM (1 child)
> Air quality improves when St Greta stops flying yacht crews around the world.
Shows an ironic lack of understanding of the tragedy of the commons,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2020, @05:56PM
Well, that and the tragedy of Fox News.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2020, @01:08PM (1 child)
How is St. Greta doing? At least she's not under house arrest and can enjoy an afternoon stop in a café.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2020, @05:54PM
Very well I hope.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2020, @12:09PM (5 children)
As we electrify our vehicles and reduce fossil fuel usage (at least that's the plan, right?), we should see reduction of NOx, O3 and most of the particulates. But in western nations, we will still see particulate pollution - simply dust from tires, brakes, etc. So what we see now with COVID19, will hopefully be our future in about 10-20 years. But the bottom line will be, as always, coal and crude oil production amounts.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2020, @12:35PM (4 children)
With oil at $25 a barrel, I'm gonna buy me a F150. Does that answer your question?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 12 2020, @01:08PM
People are stupid and short-sighted, is often the answer to these kinds of questions.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday May 12 2020, @04:46PM (2 children)
One of the weirder things I remember from my childhood was the garbage disposal method my father sometimes used. He incinerated it, in our back yard. Had a special kind of trash can, metal, with holes, for this purpose. We lived outside the city, so, no forbidding ordinances to worry about.
Burning the trash was sort of fun, but it was troublesome too. The trash can rusted like mad. About 3 burnings, and it was done, go buy a new can. Any plastic in the trash, and you had to take extra care. The fire would burn hotter and longer. Wait for a day when the wind was blowing away from the house, so the toxic fumes wouldn't choke everyone, and so that sparks wouldn't be blown towards the house. Another major problem was grass fires. He had to stay close, to beat out any sparks that landed in the grass. He had mother stand nearby, holding a garden hose. One time, it nearly got away from them. Burned an area about the size of a car before they were able to put it out. Once the trash is incinerated, there's still a mess to clean up. Want to soak those ashes heavily, make sure they stay out.
But dammit, it was his right to dispose of trash by burning it in his own back yard! Might have cost us a house, but hey, life is full of risks. But you will have an F-150. Don't burn your own trash, put that F-150 to use, haul your trash to the dump.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday May 12 2020, @05:56PM (1 child)
In rural areas in the 70s this was common practice -- there was no garbage pickup. Food waste went into the compost pile and trash into the burn barrel, except the ones I'm familiar with were a 50 gallon drum with holes punched in the bottom to let air in. The metal drums lasted a long time -- no idea what the guy was using that it burned out in three burns, but he should have looked into a better container.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 12 2020, @08:45PM
Sounds like he was saving money.
(Score: 5, Informative) by EETech1 on Tuesday May 12 2020, @05:06PM (1 child)
One of the most important parts of making N95 and HEPA filter media is applying static charges to the layers so they attract the smaller particles.
An N95 mask is only about 'N60' without the static charge, which is also why washing the masks is not a good thing to do. It neutralizes the charge, and greatly lowers the filtration efficiency.
Why don't we just make a better filter that doesn't rely on static charge to meet the requirements? Because it's not comfortable to breathe through. Duct tape will stop 100 percent of coronavirus from getting in your mouth too.
So right now, hundreds of new places around the world are purchasing this static charging equipment, while others run their existing equipment 24x7 to make the specialized fabrics needed for these masks.
The actual process uses +-40kv and works by Corona Discharge.
This generates a huge amount of ozone. Some of these production lines can make a million (square) yards an hour of material, 8 yards of fabric a second
They have multiple 6-7 foot wide "Pinner bars" that are specially made with rows of little needles that generate these Coronas.
I've wondered what this adds to surface level ozone levels, it takes an incredible amount of ventilation to provide a safe work environment, and there's areas that are not safe to go in while the equipment is running because of ozone exposure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2020, @08:39AM
Probably nothing. You can filter the generated ozone through water filter and neutralize all of it.
Ozone outside is from smog not because someone is emitting it. If you emit that much of it, people would die around the plant